# Date: 1903-11-20

LETTER
FROM N. E. VILONOV TO V. I. LENIN

by origin and later in his brochure "The Struggle Against 'State of Siege' in the R.S.-D.R.P." (see further details in note 16 to document 127 above, pp. 43–44).
6 G. M. Kržižanovskii and F. B. Lengnik.
7 V. A. Noskov.
8 In the Party Council of the first composition (immediately after the Congress) the "three Russian social-democrats" were F. V. Lengnik, L. E. Galperin, and V. A. Noskov.
9 The "two from abroad" in the same composition of the Council were G. V. Plekhanov and V. I. Lenin.

Appendix.

LETTER FROM N. E. VILONOV TO V. I. LENIN*.

Dear comrade!

Recently, that is, after the II-nd Party Congress, we were informed that the Central Committee was not elected by the Congress unanimously, that the Congress split into two parts over the question of the relationship between the Central Organ and the Central Committee, and what is called the majority and minority were formed. All this, like a heavy stone, came crashing down upon our heads and crushed us with its full weight, because the very question of the relationship between the Central Organ and the Central Committee was for us an unexpected piece of news: right up to the Congress itself, it was not only not raised in any circles or meetings, but, as far as I recall, it was passed over in passing** even in the literature. This very silence about it before the Congress I do not understand; if one were to suppose that it did not exist at all, then one would have to acknowledge that the comrades who had devoted all their efforts to the unification of the party did not have a clear conception of its organization, that is, its structure; but the second is quite impossible, because the very question that has now split the party clearly shows that views on the structure of the party existed and were not identical among all; and if that is so, why was it concealed? That is the first matter. And the second is the question itself. When it comes to deciding it, I pose to myself such a question: what structure of the party will ensure its orthodox direction? And right alongside it there arises in my mind the thought that besides the structure of the party, the composition of its leaders is important, that is, if they are orthodox, then the direction of the party is orthodox; if they are opportunists, then the party is the same.

Now, having such assumptions and knowing the composition of the party's leaders, I absolutely state myself in favor of the predominance of the Central Organ over the Central Committee in the ideological leadership of the party*. To state oneself in favor of this is all the more compelled by Russian reality. However orthodox the Central Committee may be, being in Russia it cannot be insured against collapse, and consequently against the loss of orthodoxy against its will, since successors do not always correspond to those whom they replace. Which of the comrades working even somewhat in the committees is not familiar with such phenomena, that the very best committee, by virtue of one of many accidents, is replaced by a bad one and vice versa. It is quite different with the Central Organ. It stands in different conditions (taking into account that the Central Organ will be located abroad), which ensure it a longer existence, and consequently the possibility of preparing worthy successors for itself. But I do not know, comrade, whether this question can be decided once and for all, that is, either so that the Central Organ always predominates over the Central Committee or the Central Committee over the Central Organ. I think not. Let us take such a situation. Suddenly the composition of the Central Organ changed and from orthodox became opportunistic, as, for example, "Vorwärts" in Germany. Well, can one then give it predominance in ideological leadership? What would we do, educated in the orthodox spirit? Surely we should not have to agree with it? No, our duty would be to take away from it the right to predominance and transfer it into the hands of another institution, and if this were not done for some reason, whether it be party discipline or something else, we would all deserve to be called traitors to the workers' social-democratic movement. This is how I look at it and I cannot in any way agree with a decision made once and for all, as some comrades do.

Now the struggle that is being waged between the majority and the minority is completely incomprehensible to me, and it seems to very many of us to be incorrect. Well, tell me, comrade! Is it natural that such a situation should exist when all forces are devoted to traveling around to committees for the sole purpose of discussing the majority and minority? I really do not know whether this question is so important that all forces should be devoted to it and because of it people should look at each other almost like enemies, and in fact it turns out that if a committee is composed, let us suppose, of one camp, then from the other, no one will enter it there, despite all his suitability for work, even, if you like, he will not enter even when he is necessary for work, when the latter loses much from his absence. By this, of course, I do not want to say that one should completely abandon the struggle over this question. Not at all, only, in my view, it should bear a different character, and because of it we should not forget our main task, namely the propagation of social-democratic ideas among the masses, because by forgetting this, we thereby greatly** enfeeblen our party. I do not know if it is honest, but when one happened to see that the interests of the work were trampled in the mud and completely forgotten, I called all of them political intrigues. How it pained and terrified one for the very work, when one saw that the people standing at the head of it were occupied with something else. Looking at this, one thinks, is our party condemned to eternal splits over such trifles, are we not capable of conducting internal struggle together with external struggle at one and the same time. Why then are Congresses arranged, if their decisions are not taken into account and everyone does as he pleases, justifying himself by saying that, they say, the Congress decided incorrectly, the Central Committee is not capable of functioning, etc. And this is done by those who before the Congress were all the time shouting about centralization, about party discipline, and so forth, and now, as it were, want to show that discipline is needed only for ordinary mortals, and not for them, the people at the top. They must have forgotten that their example terribly corrupts inexperienced comrades. Already now one hears again among the workers discontent with the intelligentsia, which, because of strife among itself, forgets them; already now the more zealous are losing heart, not knowing what to do. For the present, the entire centralized organization of work now appears as an empty sound; one can only hope that in the future everything will change for the better.

We are very interested in your view on the present state of affairs, therefore it would be good if we could become acquainted with it; it would help us take a firmer ground. My address is:*

[December 3] November 20, 1903 [Ekaterinoslav].

* In the manuscript the address itself was carefully crossed out in ink, apparently upon receipt of the letter. Besides, the last paragraph, beginning with the words: "We are very interested in your view," was struck through, apparently by V. I. Lenin.
Ed.